In the early hours of a quiet morning in Damascus, a soft wind swept through the broken streets. It carried not only dust but something else, something rare in recent years: the faint but real hope of beginning again.
The war in Syria has finally ended. After so much loss and despair, many still struggle to believe that the decades-long rule of the Assad family is over. Yet here stands Syria, at a turning point. With interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa now leading the country, the task ahead is far greater than reconstruction. It is about reviving public institutions, rebuilding trust and reestablishing the rule of law, values that once echoed across the region when the Arab Spring began.
For years, Syria was caught in the web of foreign alliances. Under former regime leader Bashar Assad, its deep ties with Iran turned the country into a corridor for proxy forces and foreign agendas. The result was catastrophic: bombed-out cities, displaced millions and an economy brought to its knees.
Now, with Assad gone, Syria finds itself at a rare moment of choice. The same hopes that ignited uprisings across the Arab world, dignity, justice and a state that serves its people, are slowly returning to the surface.
One clear sign of change is Syria’s quiet decision to remain neutral in the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel. Even after missiles and drones struck inside its territory, the new leadership stayed silent. No alliances were reaffirmed, no rhetoric exchanged. In a region where silence is often louder than words, this restraint speaks volumes. It suggests Syria is no longer willing to be used as someone else’s battleground. Iran’s brutal involvement in the war to back the Assad dictatorship, particularly through proxy militias, contributed directly to the prolonged bloodshed. That memory is still fresh. The decision to stand back from the latest confrontation between Iran and Israel reflects more than caution; it reflects a shift in posture.
Yet the fragility of Syria’s path forward became unmistakable on June 22, when a suicide bomber affiliated with Daesh struck the Mar Elias Greek Orthodox church in Damascus, killing over 20 civilians during mass. The attack was condemned by Türkiye, the United Nations, and several regional and international actors. This act was more than a human tragedy; it directly and openly challenged the pluralism, tolerance, and lawful coexistence that the new Syria aims to build.
It is necessary to add that Syria must now begin the difficult work of rebuilding a functioning state and the whole extended state apparatus grounded in law and accountability. This means institutions that protect rights, courts that apply justice fairly, and systems that respond to the people, not rule over them.
Past examples show how reform is possible. The Council of Europe, for instance, worked with Tunisia and Morocco after the Arab Spring, offering legal cooperation, institutional support and guidance. A similar framework, carefully adapted to Syria’s own needs, could help shape a new constitution, support judicial independence, and secure essential rights.
Some may argue that European norms and Islamic principles cannot be reconciled. That view, though common, reflects a deeper problem. It implies that the people of the Middle East are destined to live under lesser standards.
Minimum rights such as the freedom to assemble, protest or speak freely are not uniquely Western demands. They are human needs. And when implemented sincerely, they also serve as tools for stability. Allowing people to express their questions and anger through peaceful means is one way to prevent unrest from becoming something worse.
The path is clear for Syria: restructure the courts, train a new generation of judges and even high judges, improve conditions in detention centers and prisons and root out corruption. These are technical but necessary steps. As is known, the Council of Europe has already supported such reforms also in other Muslim-majority countries such as Türkiye, Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Their experiences show that legal reform does not require abandoning culture or faith; it requires commitment and the right partnerships.
Alongside multilateral support, the ongoing bilateral cooperation with Türkiye offers another route. Türkiye’s experience with public sector reform, law enforcement training and institutional restructuring, much of it shaped through its work with international organizations, can offer guidance. Syria’s transition should not be dictated from the outside; it should be accompanied by support, not control.
The Arab League, which allowed Syria to return in 2023, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which accepted Syria back in March 2025, can help the country by working on joint projects with the public international organizations mentioned earlier or with other international partners. But again, as mentioned above, regional reintegration should not only be a political move; it also needs real support to rebuild Syria’s institutions. Fixing roads and ports can improve things on the surface, but rebuilding and restoring the public institutions and legal system is what will give the country a strong and stable future.
Syria’s new legal order must guarantee freedom of speech, association and political participation as demanded since the beginning of the Arab Spring. Also, it must ensure protection for minorities and judicial independence. Moreover, it must draw a permanent line under torture, surveillance and impunity. These are not foreign ideas imposed from abroad. On the contrary, they reflect values that are deeply rooted in the dominant religious tradition already upheld by the majority of the population in Syria. Moreover, they are obligations Syria accepted long ago under international law, though, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 1969.
Let us not forget Mohamed Bouazizi, the young Tunisian whose protest sparked the Arab Spring. His story is not only about a single act of desperation, but about an entire region’s relationship with broken systems. Syria must not return to that silence. New institutions must be capable of listening to grievances and responding within the boundaries of justice.
If Syria succeeds, the consequences will stretch far beyond its borders. A stable and lawful Syria would ease the burden on its neighbors, slow the spread of extremism, and offer new opportunities for trade and diplomacy. Its ports, roads and geography could once again position it as a vital connection point in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Still, this moment is fragile. Drone strikes and missile debris are reminders that regional tensions remain dangerously close. Syria must keep its focus. The real task is not only to rebuild, but to reimagine itself as a republic governed by fairness, not fear.
The legal choices made today will shape Syria for generations. This is not simply a time to recover; it is a chance, perhaps the last in a long while, to restore something far more difficult to regain than buildings: trust!
And that must not be lost!
